GUILTY Australia - Jill Meagher, 29, Melbourne, 22 Sep 2012 #1

[SapphireSteel]

I would have thought examining her home and her husband would just be standard operations, done in every murder investigation. I don't think it signifies anything.

The forensics - probably not unusual.

The Homicide Detectives rocking up and asking to speak to "Tom" again - definitely not SOP.

 

[The Unfortunate Ms M]

I wish we had some non-Rupert Murdoch owned press reports (that's Herald Sun, The Australian and news.com.au).

They will say anything for pageviews, regardless of whether it's just rumour. To be honest if it's only them reporting something I don't trust it particularly. Until there's another ABC report I'll assume there isn't really any new news

 

[truth_morph]

I would have thought examining her home and her husband would just be standard operations, done in every murder investigation. I don't think it signifies anything.

Look, I do understand that's usually the first point of enquiry in their investigation (to look at the spouse/partner). But, two unmarked vans turning up to pull the place apart ..... hhhmmmm :waitasec:

 

[SapphireSteel]

This a link to the husbands interview. He does say she only took her bankcard and phone-At the 11 second mark. He then talks about the bar workers, but says they said she left that bar at 1:30 with work friends and went to another bar after that?- about 1:40 in to the video. At 2:40ish is his answer to the midlife crisis question. At 2:50ish he says '...the day before she left' then quickly corrects himself. I would like to see a statement analysis of his interview. Moo


*different link then original post

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0924/breaking7.html

I can do some s/a but it's never very well received on here so I never bother, except for personal reasons.

I don't need to do it in this case however.

My mind was made up from the get go...just like Alison Baden Clay.

Same old story.

:banghead:

 

[SapphireSteel]

I wish we had some non-Rupert Murdoch owned press reports (that's Herald Sun, The Australian and news.com.au).

They will say anything for pageviews, regardless of whether it's just rumour. To be honest if it's only them reporting something I don't trust it particularly. Until there's another ABC report I'll assume there isn't really any new news

Like the picture of the cops taking the picture of their own camera bag.

:banghead:

 

[cluciano63]

Why would her husband say she never took her purse, and then go out and plant it? That does not make sense to me...unless others were saying she DID have it?

 

[SapphireSteel]

I would have thought examining her home and her husband would just be standard operations, done in every murder investigation. I don't think it signifies anything.

Come to think of it, a forensic examination of a non-crime scene is not SOP.

Forensics are only used when they expect to find relevant evidence.

Daniel Morcombe's house, for example, did not have the Homicide squad and forensics through it the next day.

 

[J-Diggety]

I am not knocking the victim here at all, but if she knocked off at 5pm, which the phonecall to her husband implied, then that is nearly 7 hours of drinking.

That is a big night by anyone's standards.

At the end of a big night you decide to call your brother because you're worried about your father? Not at anytime THROUGH the seven hours of fun?

Ohhhkayyyy......

When Ive had sickness or tough times in the family, ive called my siblings all times of the day, especially late at night.

And if youve had a big day on the drink, people tend to get melancholy, it makes perfect sense to calll love dones, Ive had some of my best chats then, and I know a lot of friends who do the same

 

[The Unfortunate Ms M]

Look, I do understand that's usually the first point of enquiry in their investigation (to look at the spouse/partner). But, two unmarked vans turning up to pull the place apart ..... hhhmmmm :waitasec:

It seems normal to me because they have no other leads. The Inspector said there was no physical evidence, they've got nothing of CCTV, there's an enormous amount of media scrutiny, they have to look SOMEwhere next.

I'm not saying it DOESN'T mean anything, I'm just saying it could easily mean that they suspect him or that they have no other leads and they're getting desperate, and that we have no way of knowing which of those things is the cause

 

[J-Diggety]

Now the question begs...why would investigators move the handbag to a chair, possibly contaminating and losing evidence?

They have to move it, once photographed and looked at by forensics, its their job to secure it for potential further evidence. It wouldnt be left in-situ for the duration of their evidence gathering for risk of contamination.

 

[SapphireSteel]

It seems normal to me because they have no other leads. The Inspector said there was no physical evidence, they've got nothing of CCTV, there's an enormous amount of media scrutiny, they have to look SOMEwhere next.

I'm not saying it DOESN'T mean anything, I'm just saying it could easily mean that they suspect him or that they have no other leads and they're getting desperate, and that we have no way of knowing which of those things is the cause

Those of us who have hung around WS for a while are all too aware of the evidence that is NOT released, and the fact that Police do not get "desperate" four days after a disappearance.

It's only just begun.

:cow:

 

[Fuskier]

UPDATE: MSM allege that HOMICIDE squad detectives and forensic investigators have arrived at the home of missing woman Jill Meagher this afternoon...in two unmarked police vans; they entered Lux Way, Brunswick just before 12.15pm... It is also alleged that the Forensic Squad are at the scene.
Two Homicide Squad officers were allegedly heard informing... the intercom they were there to "speak to Tom".

www.heraldsun.com.au Erin Marie, Wayne Flower, Herald Sun, September 25, 2012 12:57PM

 

[Yoda]

I can do some s/a but it's never very well received on here so I never bother, except for personal reasons.

I don't need to do it in this case however.

My mind was made up from the get go...just like Alison Baden Clay.

Same old story.

:banghead:

Thanks. I have been reading analysis' from a SA professional for about a year and I just don't have the knack, but there were a few red flags in the interview: changing tense, not asking for her return, correcting self. Moo

 

[The Unfortunate Ms M]

Those of us who have hung around WS for a while are all too aware of the evidence that is NOT released, and the fact that Police do not get "desperate" four days after a disappearance.

It's only just begun.

Yeah, that makes sense.

My impression was that (intimate partner) murderers tend to be abusers first. That is, controlling. I know this is very speculative, but Jill was out, alone, with work friends - she had a wide variety of friends, she had access to her own money, she was in close contact with her family - she had freedom, she wasn't being controlled or restricted at all, so I'm inclined to guess she wasn't being abused.

 

[J-Diggety]

The forensics - probably not unusual.

The Homicide Detectives rocking up and asking to speak to "Tom" again - definitely not SOP.

If they have new evidence that he could corroborate, it is normal SOP

 

[Oz Jen]

To be fair the media is not THAT dodgy that they would use a stock photo and label it as Jill's bag. I know stock photos are used but that is usually labelled very clearly as a stock photo and used to show greater detail - which is certainly not the case here

She worked in radio - unless she was in sales there would be no need for a briefcase, and we know she wasn't in sales.

As you know I am in the media (we've been down this road lol) and worked in radio in Australia.

Worked in radio for years, too. Never, ever carried a briefcase as I was not in sales or management. I would not imagine she ordinarily carried a briefcase in her role, either.

 

[truth_morph]

Forensics are only used when they expect to find relevant evidence.

That was my understanding too (albeit limited).

Don't they have to apply to the courts for a search warrant?

 

[The Unfortunate Ms M]

Don't they have to apply to the courts for a search warrant?

Only if the relevant person doesn't give them permission. The fact that they didn't need a warrant suggests husband allowed free access.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Actually both of the above are CSI fallacies in Australia.

All police need to do to search a property is to have "probable cause".

That means they can knock on anyone's door, say "open up" and you pretty much have to. A warrant is a formality. You will be arrested for obstruction.

In a suspected Homicide, they've got all the probable cause they need.

What WE don't know, is why it's a suspected homicide...but clearly, it is.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

I would be petrified to drive in the states, I'm quite sure I'd write myself off the first day.

When I get back from riding in Los Angeles...(I always have DH drive)... I kiss the ground when I get home...........because I am never sure I am getting back alive! :what: